The Ketchum Report

[Guest parnassus]

Not a single one, a whole frakking LAB of them, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/global-warming-fraud-and-the-future-of-science_by-j-r-dunn/

The later article also mentions the Korean biologist, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who was later discovered to have faked all his research, though it correctly states his work was in cloning "higher animals" and stem cell lines, not human beings per se.

Phil Jones of East Anglia was exonerated. The so-called Climategate was a fiction created by dishonest hackers who wished to discredit good climate scientists. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/climate-scientist-phil-jo_b_519298.html

Your second reference is to an extremist political blog that has no place in a serious discussion.

[Guest]

Please take the Climate gate discussion to PM, it is off topic and considered a topic with political connotations and not appropriate for this thread.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

The only credentials of anyone being a scientist that matter to me at this point are the ones reviewing the paper and the ones that are able to verify or disprove the claim. If she didn't hand off the paper and made claims herself, then questioning her credentials would matter to me. Otherwise she is out of the equation at this point IMO of course.

Obviously we don't have the results yet, and I'm not aware of the credentials of the people reviewing the paper so breaking her down or building her up is all we have at this point. But it doesn't really matter in the end. Of course discussing it is fine. That's what most of us are here for anyway.

[Guest parnassus]

The "for profit" part is definately aimed at the legitimacy of her work, since real science doesn't cost anything.

it seems that we have a tempest in a teapot.

The discussion was about scientists generally and their reputations. I made the point that scientists are, as a group, a well-monitored group: screened, reviewed, backgrounded, and evaluated extensively, particularly as regards obtaining promotions or prestigious positions. Another poster, not me, out of the blue, brought up Dr. Ketchum, and opined that what I said must apply to her. I then wrote that she did not qualify as one of the people I was referring to, not a scientist, for the purposes of that discussion, but rather:

She is a vet and an entrepreneur. Furthermore, she is self-employed... she isn't being scrutinized for employment or promotion by universities or other employers. She is a smart person, and a professional, but is she is a self employed for profit businessperson (and one with a bad BBB rating.)

now, let the mind-reading, deducting, grudge-bearing, straw-men, and red-herrings continue.

[TimB]

She's a vet with a lab business. She has to know some science. If you want to call that a being a scientist, you are free to do so.

What part of that doesn't insinuate a lack of scientific knowledge? It's a skillfully-built series of sentences for use on this board but the meaning is still there. It's definitely a minor issue but it's still your stated opinion.

Tim B.

[bipedalist]

As I said in a prior post; the entrepreneurial, for-profit scientist (if that is what you truly think Dr. Ketchum is {sic} is a known quantity and among those who garner significant accolades in the scientific community)......'nuf said!

Edited five times within five minutes for the benefit of the 'footer community

[southernyahoo]

now, let the mind-reading, deducting, grudge-bearing, straw-men, and red-herrings continue.

It isn't hard to see where you are going with your arguments Parn, We're all just waiting for the more serious accusations.

[Guest]

Just so all posting members here are aware...

Dr. Ketchum IS a member of these forums... while not a particularly active member, she is still a member, and should be afforded the same level of respect that each of you would expect when it comes to how you like to be treated.

That being said- please be careful about how your wording statements regarding her, and please keep any criticisms you have limited to her work.

I believe post's regarding her motives, and other off the track comments are getting a little personal, and are out of place as far as what the rules and guidelines allow for.

Thank you

Art

[TimB]

THank you Art.

Tim B.

[Guest]

slimwitless, on 01 August 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

That's good news.

I recently stumbled on the JREF forums. I wonder how they'll handle it if this actually pans out.

I'd like to see them fund their champion Distotell in a paralell study of the evidence. When it's all done, maybe we'll serve crow at their banquet.

Seriously doubt they'll do it.

1) they're Skeptics. By their own rules, they don't have to prove ANYTHING. Bigfoot doesn't exist by default until we drag a dead or living monkey into their lab.

2) Many of them have already stated to one degree or another that they consider any DNA result that cannot be matched to the physical corpse of a large, bipedal primate in scientifically possession is evidentiarily worthless.

What I want to know is why certain people on this forum don't spend more time there...

They do. Read their threads, you'll see a lot of familiar names.

[Guest]

I just talked with her. She has a B.S. in Vet Science and a Doctorate in Vet Medicine from Texas A&M. She is both a scientist and a doctor.

Game set and match! She's a scientist, and the Skeptics (as usual) have been refuted!

[Guest]

The "for profit" part is definately aimed at the legitimacy of her work, since real science doesn't cost anything.

Which makes me wonder just where all that funding they're always whining about needing really goes...

[Guest]

it seems that we have a tempest in a teapot.

The discussion was about scientists generally and their reputations. I made the point that scientists are, as a group, a well-monitored group: screened, reviewed, backgrounded, and evaluated extensively, particularly as regards obtaining promotions or prestigious positions. Another poster, not me, out of the blue, brought up Dr. Ketchum, and opined that what I said must apply to her. I then wrote that she did not qualify as one of the people I was referring to, not a scientist, for the purposes of that discussion, but rather:

now, let the mind-reading, deducting, grudge-bearing, straw-men, and red-herrings continue.

Translation: I've been refuted multiple times by multiple people, so I'm going to try to distance myself from my own insinuations.

No sale, Parn. You made the claims...and now you have to take ownership of them even though it's turned out to hurt your case rather than help it.

[Guest parnassus]

Game set and match! She's a scientist, and the Skeptics (as usual) have been refuted!

She was in a combined program in which she was admitted to vet school without an undergrad degree and then given double credit for subsequent classes toward both a B.S. and a DVM. One can debate the merits of that.

I'm glad Hairyman called but perhaps there was a misunderstanding. DVM is a professional degree. That is not referred to as a doctorate or a doctoral degree any more than an MD is. But if a person wants to call it that, that is up to them.

I have no further comment on the "scientist" issue other than what I posted above.

Tempest in a teapot....

[Guest]

I've known for a long time about the phenomena of Medical Doctors who suffer from a "God complex" and I understood what was meant by that, however it was not until I visited a Dr. who clearly suffered from this phenomena that I really had first hand experience with such. The arrogance was astounding with little regard for others.

So a scientist who works in the private sector can be subject to being thrown under the bus as far as being a 'real' scientist? Really? It's not as if they have totally thrown out their scientific learning and methods and have left the ivory towers to go out and shuck all the people by calling themselves MD's or DVM's and the real scientists back at the ivory towers have to 'tolerate' them.

I for one have a higher regard for those who are not so concerned about prestigious positions or climbing the ivory tower ladder. It is one thing if a scientist is granted a position because of their excellent work - nothing wrong with that imo, but when the positions and the promotions become the objective, not the excellence in their work, then they have their priorities backwards even if they are able to achieve those positions.

I see similarities between the ivory tower scientists who have such a disposition and the MD's who have a God complex.

Is it customary for a scientist to be maligned prior to the release of their findings that they believe are significant? Can a scientist who has spent the first part of his career studying the making of beer and wine offer anything of significance to the medical profession? It has been done before.

I agree with those who say that Dr. Ketchem's study/ test results will stand on their own. The time to critique a work is when the work is completed and presented, and even then it should be the work that is critiqued more so than the person who presented it.